no one actually uses corn anyway, right?
Almost as a follow up to yesterday's discussion, let us stop and ponder the following breakthrough:
"Hey guys! I have a solution to our search for alternative energy! Let's use our food supply for fuel! I can't think of any problems with that, can you?"
Gee, I dunno. Perhaps increasing the price of not only the food in question - corn - but also everything that depends on corn such as milk, beef, pork, bacon, etc. Oh, and since farmers get that nice subsidy for corn, they are also converting fields which used to grow wheat, soybeans, and other crops to corn. So expect higher prices in tofu, soy milk, and bread.
Corn and milk: A 1-2 inflation combo
Agricultural commodities tend to act independently of each other when it comes to pricing, but the unprecedented demand for corn has sent the prices of other products to unsustainable levels, a trend Newsom said will reverse eventually but not before prices see a dramatic surge. As such, he's forecasting record or near-record prices this year as well for soybeans, wheat, lean hogs and cattle, all of which could be good news for the savvy futures investor as well as farmers but bad news for consumers.
But hey, we all need to sacrifice a bit to save the planet and reduce our foreign oil dependence right? I mean, what's a few extra bucks at the grocery store if we're using greener fuel and becoming more energy independent?
Even ignoring the insane amounts of asinine dripping from the logic, it just ain't true.
Corn Dog: The ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine.
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production-from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant-and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas-from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining-requires around 22,000 BTUs.
So, to sum up, we're using our food for fuel, we're damaging our economy in numerous, far-reaching ways, we're wasting more energy, we're driving the price of gasoline up, and not even making a dent in our foreign oil dependence.
There may come a day when using part of our food supply for fuel makes sense. But we'll know that day has arrived when the MARKET tells us that, not when the government manipulates prices and sends the economy careening out of control. It's BASIC ECONOMICS. Why don't our politicians get that?
PS: I know that the corn/ethanol subsidies are not wholly due to environmentalist propaganda and that part of it is to reduce foreign oil dependence. But, to answer some that asked yesterday "What is your deal with global warming, anyway?" THIS would be one example. When environmental issues are overblown, it leads to stupid governmental measures that harm everyone. Again, in this case it's only partially environmentally driven. I shudder to think what it will be tomorrow.
ETA: John Stossel, one of my heroes, simply loves our corn and ethanol subsidies. [/sarcasm] Probably the best, most concise article on why ethanol is garbage.
"Hey guys! I have a solution to our search for alternative energy! Let's use our food supply for fuel! I can't think of any problems with that, can you?"
Gee, I dunno. Perhaps increasing the price of not only the food in question - corn - but also everything that depends on corn such as milk, beef, pork, bacon, etc. Oh, and since farmers get that nice subsidy for corn, they are also converting fields which used to grow wheat, soybeans, and other crops to corn. So expect higher prices in tofu, soy milk, and bread.
Corn and milk: A 1-2 inflation combo
Agricultural commodities tend to act independently of each other when it comes to pricing, but the unprecedented demand for corn has sent the prices of other products to unsustainable levels, a trend Newsom said will reverse eventually but not before prices see a dramatic surge. As such, he's forecasting record or near-record prices this year as well for soybeans, wheat, lean hogs and cattle, all of which could be good news for the savvy futures investor as well as farmers but bad news for consumers.
But hey, we all need to sacrifice a bit to save the planet and reduce our foreign oil dependence right? I mean, what's a few extra bucks at the grocery store if we're using greener fuel and becoming more energy independent?
Even ignoring the insane amounts of asinine dripping from the logic, it just ain't true.
Corn Dog: The ethanol subsidy is worse than you can imagine.
The two scientists calculated all the fuel inputs for ethanol production-from the diesel fuel for the tractor planting the corn, to the fertilizer put in the field, to the energy needed at the processing plant-and found that ethanol is a net energy-loser. According to their calculations, ethanol contains about 76,000 BTUs per gallon, but producing that ethanol from corn takes about 98,000 BTUs. For comparison, a gallon of gasoline contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. But making that gallon of gas-from drilling the well, to transportation, through refining-requires around 22,000 BTUs.
So, to sum up, we're using our food for fuel, we're damaging our economy in numerous, far-reaching ways, we're wasting more energy, we're driving the price of gasoline up, and not even making a dent in our foreign oil dependence.
There may come a day when using part of our food supply for fuel makes sense. But we'll know that day has arrived when the MARKET tells us that, not when the government manipulates prices and sends the economy careening out of control. It's BASIC ECONOMICS. Why don't our politicians get that?
PS: I know that the corn/ethanol subsidies are not wholly due to environmentalist propaganda and that part of it is to reduce foreign oil dependence. But, to answer some that asked yesterday "What is your deal with global warming, anyway?" THIS would be one example. When environmental issues are overblown, it leads to stupid governmental measures that harm everyone. Again, in this case it's only partially environmentally driven. I shudder to think what it will be tomorrow.
ETA: John Stossel, one of my heroes, simply loves our corn and ethanol subsidies. [/sarcasm] Probably the best, most concise article on why ethanol is garbage.